Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Stalin V Hitler - playing the numbers game
Comments
-
I think it's safe to say that the majority of notable 'high' estimates - or at least the key ones, such as Antonov-Ovseyenko, Conquest, Medvedev, Solzhenitsyn - pre-date the opening of the archives. Certainly the key research (and almost every 'high' estimate draws to some degree on Conquest) was completed in the 1960s and 70s. Nor has any real new demographic/literary evidence emerged in the past two decades to suggest that these estimates were correct or too low. The key preoccupation, academic-wise, of this old guard has been to try, and IMO fail, to reconcile their figures with the archive dataActually it's you who have ignored post 1990 higher range estimate (where ignore=disregard.)
1) I don't understand your Finnish example. Are you contending that there is no record of those 'missing' soldiers in the Soviet archives?NKVD compiled documents are not inherently trustworthy. To give you one example, The Finnish army lost certain men in the Winter war, X Killed and X missing. Many of the missing are safely presumed captured. However after the war less than 2,000 were returned prisoners of war. Do you honestly expect people to believe that the soviet forces recorded every prisoner they executed in the field or who died either on their way to or in a gulag ?
2) I would expect that the vast majority of people executed by the state or who died in its custody would be represented in the records. Why? Because the vast majority of the victims moved through some sort of process, be it judicial or extra-judicial, and this left records. Again, these were private figures for use in reporting to political figures and administrating the system - camp populations needed to be known for purpose of supply, assigning work quotas, etc. You seem to portray these as some sort of propaganda figures inherently tainted by their origins, as if keeping records was somehow unlike the OGPU
Are the figures complete and beyond reproach? Of course not, and you'll never find me suggesting that they are. Obviously they do not account for every single death and there were murders 'off the books' so to speak. Which is why historians work in ranges and build in cushions to allow for under-reporting. The archives do however provide a relatively sound baseline from which we can work. There is absolutely no reason to suggest that, say, the 700k recorded executions in 1937-38 represent a small fraction of the total deaths
And who said it was? Nobody is talking about partisans and or the Red Army. Not even Conquest (IIRC) has war deaths built into his estimates. The discussion revolves around deaths in the Soviet penal systemThis is not to mention Soviet partisans atrocities against civilians in Russia, Finland and elsewhere in east europe. The notion that every rape and every torture or murder were conciencously recorded by either Soviet partisans or Red Army is ludicrous
Yeah, this is just a bizarre notion. Do you somehow believe that the OGPU was doctoring its own statistics several decades ago in preparation for the eventual collapse of the USSR?They survived the initial contact with NKVD and Communist Party officialdom and were later stored for decade after decade safe ? This is the same communist state that not only murdered their own, but at times literally airbrushed them out of history, or, engaged in black propaganda to concoct evidence against the other side (one example of which would be Katyn - unless we are to believe the only time they did this was the time they were found out). We are to believe these same individuals 'archive supported' 75% reduced figures are inherently more trustworthy than all other sources ?
It would have been around 160m actually. So 50m dead via Stalin plus 30m dead via the Nazis gives... well, I'll leave that for you to work outSome are for the entire soviet period. So 50,000,000 over 50 years is not half the Soviet population, (which is considerably higher than 100m in any event)
And anyone who believes that millions of Soviet citizens were being killed in the post-Stalin period is, to be blunt, an idiot
Yeah, that's enough. If you can't understand that simple point then you can only be wilfully obtuse. It is clear, and I have spelt this out several times, what evidence I am looking for here and it is clear that I am applying the same standard to both regimes. I have stated quite clearly that I don't give a damn about the lack of one "document signed by stalin ordering the Holdomor". Yet you feel free to simply ignore this and continually push your own 'no written order' strawman. One of us is in denial here and it's not meWe can wrap this part up with - 'no written order means stalin has no responsibilty for Holdomor'. For all your protestations it's clear this same standard of yours clearly does not apply to the opposing regime.
This whole thread has been a colossal waste of my time and I simply don't care any more. It is clear that nothing that has been written - by me, by Synder, by any historian - is going to convince you that your outdated mental image of 20million deaths is incorrect. So write off all that archival evidence as inherently suspect and cling to old preconceptions if you wish. Frankly I'm long past caring
And, for the record, this whole '75% decrease' is just stupid. You keep going on as if the fact that one estimate was 75% higher than later estimates is somehow evidence of some conspiracy to politically rehabilitate Stalin. Get a grip, get some perspective and get off your political hobby horse; anyone suggesting that a 'mere' 3-5 innocent people were executed by the Soviet state is not 'rehabilitating' anyone
Incidentally, have you had any luck in proving that all those historians - be they Western or Russian - are pro-communist sympathisers? Maybe you can enlighten us as to similar political links by other historians. What pro-Soviet groups do Wheatcroft and Davies belong to? What Stalinist think tank does Fitzpatrick sit on?So let me get this straight, to begin with on this thread you asserted that rehabilitation of Stalin was not a factor in the 75% reduction of Stalin death toll
It seems to me that figures published at the height of the Cold War by academics who have known affiliations to conservative think tanks (see: Conquest) or personally suffered at the hands of the Soviet state (see: Medvedev) could well be politically influenced. Particularly so when their findings are flexible enough not to be based on archival researchNow you accuse some of the earlier higher estimates as being tainted by political considerations of the West0 -
1) I don't understand your Finnish example. Are you contending that there is no record of those 'missing' soldiers in the Soviet archives?
Rather than take this thread off course I have started a new thread to cover that one here:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056344129
You can come back to this thread with your take on the likelihood of the Soviets recording such deaths. In the case of missing Finnish soldiers, if the Soviet archives recorded these men and that material was released then they would no longer be classed as missing. The same would apply to German, Romanian, etc etc.Obviously they do not account for every single death and there were murders 'off the books' so to speak.
To state that there were murders off the books, seriously, anything otherwise would be in the realm of walter mitty. Determining the difference between recorded vs non recorded murders is where it gets interesting.And who said it was? Nobody is talking about partisans and or the Red Army. Not even Conquest (IIRC) has war deaths built into his estimates. The discussion revolves around deaths in the Soviet penal system
This discussion revolves around death tolls of respective regimes. Murdering directly or through mistreatment civilians, or surrendered enemy soldiers fall into this category. In fact I would also include non direct murder such as those dead as a consequence of rape and imprisonment. In fact the numbers of women who committed suicide after being mass raped (not limited to Germany or to Berlin) should also be included in the death tolls in my view. Despite the fact that soviet statistics will clearly not record these rapes. I believe Stalin's phrase was something like :Can't he understand it if a soldier who has crossed thousands of kilometers through blood and fire and death has fun with a woman or takes some trifle?
If you believe that's indicative of a regime which will dilligently record all of it's own warcrimes then you are alone in that belief.Yeah, this is just a bizarre notion. Do you somehow believe that the OGPU was doctoring its own statistics several decades ago in preparation for the eventual collapse of the USSR?
I'd yet again point out that you are taking what is said and re-phrasing it into something no one said.
You have a blind faith in the NKVD, KGB, Soviet state in accurately recording everyone they murdered. You have been provided with examples where this is not the case. In the instance of various death-marches of captured German soldiers across europe there are many anecdotally recorded instances of where those who fell behind being executed and replaced with peasants plucked from the fields. That is one single kind of example where - not only were the deaths not recorded but the non-recording of them actually leads to more victims.It would have been around 160m actually. So 50m dead via Stalin plus 30m dead via the Nazis gives... well, I'll leave that for you to work out
To clarify for the 2nd time: the point you made about 50m death figure was that it would amount to an extremely high proportion of the population. The response was that some of those figures are for the duration of the entire communist system.And anyone who believes that millions of Soviet citizens were being killed in the post-Stalin period is, to be blunt, an idiot
Except no one here is putting that forward to begin with. At the same time there was ongoing widespread oppression caused by the communist regime, including summary execution and not limited to Russia but to places like Hungary, Estonia, Latvia etc. What would be ridiculous and totally lacking credibility or objectivity would be to claim that once Stalin was dead the new regime ended all such practices.Yeah, that's enough. ...
The bottom line on this one is as before, no written order from Stalin for the Holdomor = Stalin innocent. You do not apply that same standard to other regimes.This whole thread has been a colossal waste of my time and I simply don't care any more. .....
That is entirely up to you. I think when you are dealing with a 75% reduction in death toll the only responsible and correct approach to that is extreme scepticism. Obviously, people who are ideologically predisposed to communism and the rehabilitation of Stalin will not be nearly as sceptical or questioning. To remove ideological issues from this I would say that if the NS regime death toll was reduced by 75% I would expect the same level of necessary scepticism.And, for the record, this whole '75% decrease' is just stupid. You keep going on as if the fact that one estimate was 75% higher than later estimates is somehow evidence of some conspiracy to politically rehabilitate Stalin. Get a grip, get some perspective and get off your political hobby horse; anyone suggesting that a 'mere' 3-5 innocent people were executed by the Soviet state is not 'rehabilitating' anyone
The difference between the earlier, generally accepted figures and the new proposed ones which are being debated is approx 75%.
Your point that 5m executed being still too high a figure and can not be related to the rehabilitation of Stalin conveniently ignores the fact that it was previously 20,000,000, and so reducing the death toll by 75% is categorically, absolutely in accordance with rehabilitation of Stalin. It is clearly disingenous to suggest otherwise.Incidentally, have you had any luck in proving that all those historians - be they Western or Russian - are pro-communist sympathisers? Maybe you can enlighten us as to similar political links by other historians. What pro-Soviet groups do Wheatcroft and Davies belong to? What Stalinist think tank does Fitzpatrick sit on?
Obviously no one is taking the view that unless something is provable in a court of law it can not be a factor. This is an adult conversation, not a 'if you can't prove it in a court of law it doesn't count'. I view rehabilitation of Stalin as a factor in these discussions, as has been stated repeatedly, not the only, or over-riding factor but a factor nonetheless. It is interesting how your tack on this has changed, from 'it doesn't exsist' to 'it doesn't touch academia' to 'you can't prove it in a court of law'.It seems to me that figures published at the height of the Cold War by academics who have known affiliations to conservative think tanks (see: Conquest) or personally suffered at the hands of the Soviet state (see: Medvedev) could well be politically influenced. Particularly so when their findings are flexible enough not to be based on archival research
I'd take this as indicative of your choice to have utter faith in NKVD, KGB, Communist state integrity and honesty as regards what they recorded, (what survived the initial contact with the NKVD commissar, party official) what they retained and what has been released.0 -
Just so you know, this isn't for you Morlar. It's for anyone else who is still reading along. You're beyond hope but perhaps they can appreciate the degree to which I have "blind faith" in the Soviet sources. Here are some of my past comments on the archives in this thread alone:You have a blind faith in the NKVD, KGB, Soviet state in accurately recording everyone they murdered
"Of course these figures only provide a rough base to work from and if new numbers emerge then we are naturally obliged to factor them in"
"Obviously they have to be set alongside literary and demographic sources but these are figures that are far more detailed than previous work"
"No, of course they can be questioned. They are however, by some distance, the best figures that we currently have to work with. If at some point in the future new or contradictory evidence emerges then naturally this would lead to a re-evaluation. For now though we work with what we have and this points to a range of deaths far lower than many, but not all, pre-1990 estimates"
"The point I do take is that the statistics themselves are incomplete and be misleading in places. But that's why we employ reason and scepticism. No one believes, for example, that all those executed under 'counter-revolutionary crimes' were actually guilty of anti-Soviet agitation. Similarly, ranges are built into the estimates for this reason. The archives state that only 800k (IIRC) political executions took place during the Stalin years but most historians are smart enough to round this up to 1m or 1.5m to account for understating. What is not justified is to assume that the records only account for a small fraction of the total deaths; there's just no basis for that"
"And yet again I stress that these are the best figures that we have available at this time. Should new evidence emerge then of course these ranges will change"
"Seriously, scepticism is required when dealing with the archives but your complete rejection of them is just baseless"
"Are the figures complete and beyond reproach? Of course not, and you'll never find me suggesting that they are. Obviously they do not account for every single death and there were murders 'off the books' so to speak. Which is why historians work in ranges and build in cushions to allow for under-reporting. The archives do however provide a relatively sound baseline from which we can work. There is absolutely no reason to suggest that, say, the 700k recorded executions in 1937-38 represent a small fraction of the total deaths"
Blind and utter faith? You're having a laugh
I'm an idiot for even bothering with this. Last time: I do not give a flying **** about a "written order from Stalin". Or Hitler for that matter. You are the person who has introduced this into the discussion and it is your inane standard that you berate me for not upholdingThe bottom line on this one is as before, no written order from Stalin for the Holdomor = Stalin innocent. You do not apply that same standard to other regimes.
I have not once argued that this issue boils down to one "written order from Stalin" yet you have continually returned to this point. The reason that nobody cares about Irving's bet is that it is completely stupid: the absence of a single document does not negate another mountain of evidence. In the case of the USSR it is that 'mountain of evidence' that is missing
And, to forestall your inevitable response: no, this evidence is much more than a "written order from Stalin for the Holdomor". It would be nice if you had that but I'm so concerned with such legal or individual niceties. This is not a difficult point to grasp yet all you do is return to the absence of a single document. I really don't think you know what you're talking about
Seriously, what are you on about? "Court of law"? What? It's like you just take a sharp turn out of the conversation whenever an uncomfortable point is brought up. And no, this time I'm not going to follow youObviously no one is taking the view that unless something is provable in a court of law it can not be a factor. This is an adult conversation, not a 'if you can't prove it in a court of law it doesn't count'
You state that the "rehabilitation of Stalin" is a factor in these figures. Yet the historians who we're discussing are not Russian, or at least not predominately so. They are largely Western and writing in English. Now I would think that if you were going to accuse these academics of of bias (ie, cast aspirations on their work and research) then you would have good reason to. Aside from general mutterings about the "rehabilitation of Stalin". That is, you should be able to show some political or personal motivations on the part of the authors that influenced their judgement
If not then who are you to make unfounded allegations? This isn't a court of law but I expect you to provide something to back up your assertions
Or do you really expect us to believe that an Australian academic writing for a small and specialised audience of fellow historians is seriously worried about book sales in Russia? So much so that she actively reduces her ranges to flatter Stalin (as if 4-5 million dead is a good thing)? Or has she come under political pressure from a large and belligerent Australian pro-Stalin lobby?
Yeah, because a guy who 'only' kills five million innocent civilians is clearly a good guy! Does your mind really work like this?The difference between the earlier, generally accepted figures and the new proposed ones which are being debated is approx 75%.
Your point that 5m executed being still too high a figure and can not be related to the rehabilitation of Stalin conveniently ignores the fact that it was previously 20,000,000, and so reducing the death toll by 75% is categorically, absolutely in accordance with rehabilitation of Stalin
And, as previously noted, these figures were "new" twenty years ago. Was the rehabilitation of Stalin a big factor when the USSR was so freshly buried? Nothing says 'I Love Stalinism' like a McDonalds on Red Square :rolleyes:
[Edit: And before I forget, the archival evidence was largely in synch with many pre-1990 estimates. Not all of them were in the range of 20+ million. Again, you're working from the assumption that Conquest's work was "universally accepted"]0 -
Just so you know, this isn't for you Morlar. It's for anyone else who is still reading along. You're beyond hope but perhaps they can appreciate the degree to which I have "blind faith" in the Soviet sources. Here are some of my past comments on the archives in this thread alone:
.. . .
Blind and utter faith? You're having a laugh
Nothing you have excerpted above precludes your having an abundance of faith in the new 75% reduced figures, or, your trust in the integrity of the NKVD, KGB and communist state for accurately recording their own atrocities. So, qualifiers such as those above do not substantively change anything. Your faith here is in the integrity of some of the most vile regimes in 20th century history, namely NKVD, KGB and Stalinist/Communist regimes. This is reflected in the emphasis you place on the reduced figures & your dismissal of any historian on the opposing side of the discussion.
To give you isolated examples from the sceptical side of the fence:
http://sovietinfo.tripod.com/CNQ-Victims_Stalinism.pdfYet whatever (he weaknesses of Ihe Zemskov figures, they are nothing compared with the ones Wheatcroft relies on for his broader estimates: that is, the two reports by the KGB to the political authorities in the 1950s and 1960s. As to the Kruglov report: the security ministry representative who first made it public, the then head of its Archival Administration, General Anatolii Krayushkin. introduced it with the comment that its figures were 'far too low'. What more needs to be said? Then the Shvernik report:
(a) The total for executions in 1939 and 1940 is given in this report as 4464. This would not cover those shot at Katyn alone, while the full total for executions in the Katyn-style operations over a couple of months in the spring of 1940 is 25 700. It might be feebly argued that Katyn was a special case. How many more special cases would there be? But anyhow, the 11 000 non-POWs out of the 25 700 were processed in the ordinary way through provincial troikas, no differently from the— equally ordered from above- scores of thousands shot in the provinces in the special operation of 1937.
http://sovietinfo.tripod.com/CNQ-Victims_Stalinism.pdfSimilarly with the totals executed in 1937-38. A figure of circa 1.75 million is given by Volkogonov, and by General Karbainov of the security ministry. It is, of course, not impossible that the Shvernik report, wrong or misleading on other matters, is right about the numbers formally 'executed', but (as has been pointed out many a time) did not count in those killed with less ceremony. We cannot yet say that we have anything like perfect information, but we are at least in a better position to take a critical view than was possible earlier
http://sovietinfo.tripod.com/CNQ-Comments_WCR.pdfAs to the Shvernik report, to take a single objection to it, Wheatcroft now admits that for the one period for which we can check them, 1939±40, the ® gures givenÐ 4464Ð are false, since in March±April 1940 alone we have records of over 20 000. He is right in saying that only 21 857 of the 25 700 ordered to be shot by the Politburo seem actually to have been `executed’ , but this does not help him. He suggests that the 14 552 Polish prisoners of war among them were somehow not counted (what other categories were omitted?). In any case, the remaining 7305 were not prisoners of war at all. They were charged in a routine fashion with counterrevolutionary conspiracy (and were ordered to be shot by local troikas in the eleven provinces concerned).7
Of course, this does not prove that the Shvernik ® gures for 1937±38 are wrong, but it does prove that they cannot be accepted uncritically.
To me those random, non definitive, examples reflect genuine concerns with this data. The scope for nuance, outright manipulation and deceit available to those making the selection of which data to record, how it is recorded, whether it is retained and then finally whether or not it is distributed, all of these factors (along with the groups responsible for each part - NKVD, KGB, Communist Party etc) all combine to make them far less reliable and trustworthy in my view than you assert. I suspect that this faith of yours in NKvD/KGB/Communist sources is what is behind your attempts to frame this conversation as being a discussion where there are only 2 choices. As stated this is not a matter of the 2 choices presented by you as regards Soviet era archive releases :
'a) Accept these new 75% reduced figures or . . . b) be wrong'
or, to be more precise
'a) accept these figures (until new communist archive figures come along) . . . or b) be wrong'
Those are not the only choices here.I'm an idiot for even bothering with this. Last time: I do not give a flying **** about a "written order from Stalin". Or Hitler for that matter. You are the person who has introduced this into the discussion and it is your inane standard that you berate me for not upholding
I believe you introduced the lack of a paper trail in your defence of Stalin and your assertion that the holdomor is something of which he is innocent.Seriously, what are you on about? "Court of law"? What? It's like you just take a sharp turn out of the conversation whenever an uncomfortable point is brought up. And no, this time I'm not going to follow you
Clearly that point was a direct response to your change of tack from :
a) Rehabilitation of Stalin does not exsist
b) Rehabilitation of Stalin does exsist but not affect academia
to
c)Incidentally, have you had any luck in proving that all those historians -. . .
I think characterising your progression from A to C there as ending up at 'can't prove it in a court of law', is an accurate reflection of your stance.Yeah, because a guy who 'only' kills five million innocent civilians is clearly a good guy! Does your mind really work like this?
Let's clarify again. Rather than make misleading posts such as that one.
You make a point that a Stalin death toll reduced by 75% to 5m is incompatible with the Rehabilitation of Stalin.
To which I already replied :Your point that 5m executed being still too high a figure and can not be related to the rehabilitation of Stalin conveniently ignores the fact that it was previously 20,000,000, and so reducing the death toll by 75% is categorically, absolutely in accordance with rehabilitation of Stalin. It is clearly disingenous to suggest otherwise.
That seems clear enough to me.
Re the finnish thread :
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056344129
I take it you are choosing not to reply to the likelihood of those Soviet Red Army/Partisan atrocities being accurately recorded by the NKVD, stored by the KGB and safeguareded throughout successive Communist regimes ?
Also those other questions you skipped, about 3m missing ethnic Germans (as of 1953 West German Govt Survey), or, if you think the multitudes of women who commited suicide in the aftermath of Red Army mass-rape should also be counted in Stalin's death column ? What do you think are the odds that those murders (and others across occuppied/attacked europe) were accurately recorded ?0 -
Where is the evidence to support the claim Hitler killed 6,000,000? And is it 11,000,000 or 6,000,000?0
-
Advertisement
Advertisement